Hi, my name is Tony

and this is Every Frame a Painting.

Today's topic is the oner, AKA a long take.

This is probably the most jerked-off-to type of shot in filmmaking.

But basically, all it means

is doing an entire scene in a single, unbroken shot.

And let's face it, it's pretty awesome.

We all have our favorites.

There's six dozen lists on the internet about this.

But we tend to notice the ones that draw attention to themselves.

So let's skip all of these guys

and go to one filmmaker who does oners all the time,

except his goal is to remain invisible.

This dude.

Truthfully, Spielberg's takes aren't even that long.

He tends to keep them less than 3 minutes.

In fact, he really likes that one minute to two-minute zone,

which is long enough to cover an entire scene,

but short enough to keep the pace brisk.

And while other directors seem to have

a dominant formal technique to their long takes —

for instance, Wes Anderson likes to move laterally,

the only thing that really defines a Spielberg oner

is that it's supposed to be invisible.

So maybe I'm full of shit for even saying it exists.

Now, I'm gonna cut these shots down for this video,

but if you want to see the full scenes,

I've put them all in two separate videos linked below.

First off, a shot from Raiders of the Lost Ark.

This is a single unbroken, 90-second take.

The great thing about it is that it's basically four different shots in one:

there's a push-in, two matching singles, and an insert.

So Spielberg combines all four into a single moving master.

It's really simple and elegant,

and it probably saved a bunch of time on set.

Also, it really works for the scene,

because there's suspense in the drinking contest.

And no matter how many times I watch it,

I still forget the exact timing,

so it's always funny when this happens.

Next up is a shot from Minority Report.

This time, they're on a steadicam.

But notice how the camera never moves unmotivated.

It's always following a motion or an action.

Hold that, please.

The pacing is fantastic,

you really get the sense that the scene is unfolding in front of you,

rather than a cameraman hitting his marks.

You're in a lot of trouble, John.

The blocking of the actors is really fluid

and the shot goes from favoring one character...

...to favoring another.

Seems I've found a flaw.

Flashing back in time, this is Jaws.

The great thing about this one is how restrained it is.

The cameraman barely moves.

All of the movement is in the blocking of the actors

and specially, the really smart choice of location.

By shooting on a real ferry,

Spielberg can use the background action to keep the pace snappy.

One of the reasons I forgot how long this shot is

is because the background keeps shifting

and you're always looking at something new.

You yell "shark",

we've got a panic on our hands on the 4th of July.

Next up, Saving Private Ryan.

One of the hallmarks of a Spielberg oner

is that he tends to do almost all of his special FX or his vis FX in the master.

And this one's a doozy.

Explosions, rubble, dust, smoke, gunfire, squibs, and you know...

A tank.

Good shit.

Now, I do want to emphasize,

Spielberg did not invent this type of shot.

In fact, it used to be a very common choice.

How about you, handsome?

Haven't I seen you somewhere before?

In the 40s and 50s and 60s,

studio directors frequently employed

a moderate-length oner to move the story along.

How do you like this? I'm running outta alibis.

But really, beginning with Rope and Touch of Evil,

the oner became a calling card for directors.

Audiences noticed it,

film critics and students got raging hard-ons for it,

and for the last 50 years, it's been a game of one-upmanship.

Yours is 3 minutes? Well mine's 17.

Hitchcock did a movie seemingly in one take?

Well we did it actually in one.

Now, I'm not saying that these long takes are bad.

Most of them are fun as shit.

All of them are a little awe-inspiring.

But there used to be a real type of shot in at least American cinema that was…

for lack of a better word, really robust.

Like, it didn't break down.

It worked, it got the job done.

It was always interesting to watch.

It didn't call attention to itself.

You know, you could rely on it.

Now, it's split.

You got one branch of filmmaking

that is trying to go faster, shorter, more chaotic.

And another that is almost willfully doing the opposite.

Some people are still in the middle.

Alfonso Cuarón comes to mind

as someone trying to mine the long take for dramatic purposes.

But even Alfonso isn't trying to be invisible.

Hell, even Spielberg sometimes wants you to notice.

This one from Minority Report

is practically a De Palma or Hitchcock shot.

This one from Duel is, I mean, it's almost like a slasher movie.

This one from Always,

which is a terrible movie,

is done in sync with a 747.

And this is just insane.

But otherwise, Spielberg plays it quiet.

Which is weird to say, because you know, Spielberg.

But compared to his peers,

this technique, which he has been doing this for 40 years at this point,

makes him stand out all the more.

Which car were you planning on?

Whichever one you are.

So I guess that's maybe the closest I can get to defining a Spielberg oner.

It uses any and all possible tricks to remain invisible.

So if you're a director

and you want to pull off a Spielberg oner,

there's only a few simple rules to follow.

First, move your actors.

Move 'em around.

Don't just have them stand there and talk

like they're in a 2014 blockbuster.

Don't mind him.

- English humor? - Scottish whiskey.

Second, follow that movement.

The camera doesn't have to follow on a leash,

it can swing around, it can move counter to them,

it can track laterally, whatever.

But watch the scene and place the camera accordingly.

Third, break down the shot

into multiple compositions and smaller angles.

You are essentially linking five or six different shots

into a single moving master.

So you can think in terms of

single, over-the-shoulder, insert, wide.

It all flows together.

Ah, Frank.

Oh, and if you can accomplish all this

without even moving the camera?

Even better.

All of you?

Fourth, do your vis FX or special FX,

anything you need to keep the "magic" alive,

do it in the wide shot.

Don't cheat and construct your elements

out of close-ups and cutaways,

put 'em in the wide shot and let the actors interact with them.

And don't fucking green screen shit that should be practical

The audience can tell

when an actor is reacting to something that's there

versus something that isn't.

Fifth, if you need to, shoot a cutaway.

All of the shots in this video are completely unbroken takes,

but Spielberg isn't stupid.

He often shoots an insert or a cutaway for a oner

even if he's sure they nailed it.

This gives him the ability to tighten in editing if he needs to,

or perhaps use the beginning of one take

and the end of another.

It also helps if he needs someone

to hit a particularly difficult mark,

like making a gun land in the right spot.

...cautious fellow I am.

And last, keep it short.

Don't outstay your welcome.

The Spielberg oner is designed to get through scenes quickly

and keep the pace up.

You should not be spending an entire day

trying to get it perfect.

That's for shit like this.

So in conclusion,

I understand that there's sometimes a lot of backlash

with regards to talking about Spielberg as a serious artist.

I mean, sometimes the sentimental stuff is a little hard to swallow.

I'm not gonna talk about his legacy,

but I do think he should be celebrated for his oners.

Especially considering it's a technique

generally abandoned by mainstream directors

for either this kinda incomprehensible bullshit

or this really good, but also really noticeable style.

Ironically, this dude,

who was once considered responsible for destroying 70's Hollywood filmmaking,

is probably the greatest living practitioner

of a classic Hollywood tradition.

I wonder if he feels sad about that.

Fuck that, he's rich!

Subtitles by the Amara.org community